A bunch of people on Facebook last night said that the boy should be named Spencer...and I thought-how awful! Try saying Prince Spencer a few times. It does not come trippingly off the tongue. Maybe stick Spencer into a longer name, but please don't call him that!

And for the record, I'm an American and I don't find the Queen frigid at all! I think she's wonderful and a great role model for women! You go, Liz.

As for Spencer - as IF. The closest they will get to honouring Diana is Francis - and it's also Kate's father's middle name, so a good family name all round. This is a future king - his name must be stately and suitable to take its place in history, whether it's a traditional historic name or one that's more modern but still solid. I doubt Michael - I can see that as a middle name, but when your father, grandfather and myriad ancestors have been or will be heads of state and hold hundreds of royal titles, you do not name him after a commoner. MAYBE a second child, more likely a third.

I don't see Richard at all - too much controversy associated with the last Richard to saddle this guy with Richard IV. I'm doubting George either - not exactly the most illustrious of monarchs in recent history, especially compared to the Queen.

I expect to see Charles in there - the father and future king - and wouldn't be surprised to see Philip in there somewhere too, to honour him. I agree with those who think Arthur is a possibility though - William and Kate's ancestry crosses in Tudor times, so naming a child after the Tudor who didn't get to be king isn't a bad choice, plus it's very English and of course captures the imagination too.

My bet is on James, and I think Henry is not a bad choice either. It's a historic name, and since his uncle goes by Harry, there's no confusion. Remember that William is VERY close to Harry, who is already a prominent member of the royal family and will only become more important once his father then brother are kings, and Kate is close to him too. My personal choice would be John, but I think there's some superstition or something about a King John?

I can't see them using James because of Edward's son James, or else I'd be rooting for that. I'm thinking they might think outside the box a little and go with something not used often like Alexander (name of a few kings of Scotland, for example)... George is just so blah.

Very happy that Kate and Will had a healthy baby boy. Not sure why we are all so enthralled with the birth of a British monarch. It's nice, but people have babies every day, this is not Nobel Prize worthy.

Not sure why we are all so enthralled with the birth of a British monarch. It's nice, but people have babies every day, this is not Nobel Prize worthy.

Click to expand...

Speaking for myself, I know the reason I'm happy about this and interested in it is because I find most of the news to be so negative and sad and tiring - whether it's wars and natural disasters or nasty people doing nasty things, or yet another celebrity divorce or celebrity trainwreck. To me, a happy couple and bright future are a breath of fresh air, and that's why I follow them. I also enjoy history, and this is history unfolding in an unashamedly romantic way, and throw in some fashion frivolity, and it's all good to me

Do people seriously think Wills and Kate get to just pick a name for the heir to the throne?

Click to expand...

Some historian or royal reporter or whatever on CNN said so yesterday, that the parents are going to choose. But she also added that they're traditional people anyway. I somehow doubt they have free rein, but they do seem to divert a little bit from protocol (announcement of the birth via press release, for example) so they may choose a name they like within reason.

I doubt Michael - I can see that as a middle name, but when your father, grandfather and myriad ancestors have been or will be heads of state and hold hundreds of royal titles, you do not name him after a commoner. MAYBE a second child, more likely a third.

But not a king, or other prominent European royal who it makes sense to name him after.

Click to expand...

Wasn't Michael a primarily Catholic name in the UK in past? I can see how historically that would have been an unpopular choice among Britain's royal family, and of course they are so into tradition that now there is no precedent for a Michael.

As of yesterday I thought Richard would be the name. There is a Richard in the family, the Queen's cousin, Richard of Gloucester, so it has been used recently. Also, Richard III of York has had a bit of a revival recently since his bones were discovered in the parking lot.
Richard Francis Charles Philip. They will save Henry/Harry for the spare

Along those lines, a friend suggested Prince South of Cambridge, who will one day become South of Wales.

Probably not

Click to expand...

I think that's a great suggestion.

The funniest entertainment yesterday was watching the news channels trying to string "it's a boy!" out into hours and hours of endless coverage. My favourite was news reports speculating on what might be in Kate's hospital room, and then wondering if there might be air conditioning

As of yesterday I thought Richard would be the name. There is a Richard in the family, the Queen's cousin, Richard of Gloucester, so it has been used recently. Also, Richard III of York has had a bit of a revival recently since his bones were discovered in the parking lot.
Richard Francis Charles Philip. They will save Henry/Harry for the spare

Click to expand...

I don't know - Richard III is still controversial from the point of view of whether or not he was a good king, whether or not he murdered the princes in the tower, and the whole mess that was succession at that time. Not to mention that he allegedly died on the battlefield at the hands of Henry VII, so maybe they don't want to put those two names close together?

I definitely see Charles there though, and have said for years now that Frances/Francis is a great way to honour both Diana and Kate's father.